Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="1444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Bytes: 2138 Lines: 29 In article , wrote: >On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled: >>Oh really? Is that why they call it "machine language"? It's >>even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn: >>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language > >Its not a programming language. That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do, write programs in it. But that's not important. If we go back and look at what I wrote that you were responding to, it was this statement, about what a compiler does, and your claim that I was asserting it was translating anything to anything, which I was not: |No. It translates one computer _language_ to another computer |_language_. In the usual case, that's from a textual source Note that I said, "computer language", not "programming language". Being a human-readable language is not a requirement for a computer language. Your claim that "machine language" is not a "language" is simply not true. Your claim that a "proper" compiler must take the shape you are pushing is also not true. - Dan C.